Pharma Supply, Inc. v. Mitchell A. Stein
671 F. App'x 765
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Multiple parties (the Pharma parties, Schooley, and the Stein parties) litigated claims including legal malpractice, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment; the district court rendered a jury verdict and post-trial rulings.
- The Pharma parties had an expert witness whose report was disclosed late; the district court struck the expert.
- Pharma sought disqualification of Slenn (Stein’s attorney); the district court denied disqualification relying on Louisiana precedent.
- Schooley won a breach-of-contract verdict but the jury awarded no damages; he did not object to any inconsistency before the jury retired.
- The Stein parties lost on breach and unjust enrichment claims and moved for a new trial and argued the verdicts were a compromise; the district court denied relief.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the record, found forfeiture or inadequate appellate records for several claims, and affirmed the district court in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of late-disclosed expert | Pharma: exclusion was error and prejudicial | District court: proper sanction for late disclosure | No reversible error; Pharma failed to show prejudice and record omissions prevent review |
| Attorney disqualification (Slenn) | Pharma: Slenn should be disqualified | Stein: denial proper; relied on Farrington | Pharma abandoned challenge by not addressing Farrington; denial affirmed |
| Inconsistent verdict on breach (no damages) | Schooley: verdict inconsistent — breach found but no damages | Stein: no relief; Schooley forfeited by not objecting | Forfeited; not reviewable on appeal |
| New trial / weight of evidence on Stein’s claims | Stein: jury rejection of claims was against the weight of evidence | Jury verdict should stand; district court denied new trial | Abuse-of-discretion review; no reversible error and record incomplete for appellate review |
| Compromise verdict allegation | Stein: malpractice and contract verdicts were compromise results | District court: objection not properly raised post-trial | Forfeited; cannot be reviewed |
Key Cases Cited
- Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 (establishes harmless-error standard for appellate review)
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (issues not argued on appeal are abandoned)
- Farrington v. Sessions, Fishman, Boisfontaine, Nathan, Winn, Butler & Barkley, 687 So.2d 997 (La. 1997) (governs disqualification principles relied on by the district court)
- Reider v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 793 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2015) (requirements for preserving inconsistent-verdict and compromise-verdict objections)
- Bergeron v. Cent. Freight Lines, Inc., 504 F.2d 889 (5th Cir. 1974) (abuse-of-discretion standard for new trial review)
- Borden, Inc. v. Florida E. Coast Ry. Co., 772 F.2d 750 (11th Cir. 1985) (appellate duty to include a complete trial transcript to review sufficiency/weight-of-evidence claims)